Conversation
|
Discuss more next week. |
|
I'd agree that For #173 I would not be in favor of making that change with |
The support for the `@` syntax is not there yet, so we can move forward with this RFC without that syntax yet in place.
| new val create(name: String, this.return_type, this.params, this.attachments = None) => | ||
| this.name = Id(name) | ||
| this.partial = None | ||
| this.guard = None |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What happens with this PR if the body of the constructor is now empty? Do we still need to include => None?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
My expectation would be yes, you need to. I think it is worth explicitly noting that in this RFC.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've updated it to explicitly mention that requirement.
|
One more note possibly worth adding: are any names supported for keyword argument syntax? Does that create semver issues with the name requirements? |
|
It was noted on the sync call that @jemc will note that how this interacts with named arguments in unresolved questions. |
|
This was accepted during sync. I will do the merge and what not later. |
This PR adds my RFC for assign param syntax.